record

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It usefully discloses that recording covers all armed tracks, that start defaults to the edit cursor, that an optional end bar triggers self-stop, and that count-in/metronome are audible. It omits what happens to existing takes, whether recording is destructive/reversible, and any permission or transport prerequisites.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the timing and monitoring details. Efficient with minor room to trim the trailing REAPER-metronome clause.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains runtime behavior well but leaves the agent without guidance on safety, side effects on existing material, or how to verify the result afterward. Adequate but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 75%, above the baseline, and the description adds real meaning: it ties start_bar to the edit-cursor default, links end_bar to the auto-stop behavior, and conveys the 'or N bars' semantics for bars. Only start_beat is left unexplained in both schema and description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('starts recording') and resource ('every armed track'), with clear scope. It is distinguishable from control-plane siblings like transport, though it does not name a specific alternative to route against.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies usage by describing the start point (edit cursor default) and stop behavior (auto-stop at a bar, or until transport stop), but never states when to prefer this over siblings such as transport, set_record_settings, or recording_status. Context is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.